JUDGMENT This review application has been filed for review of the order dated 8.3.2002 passed in C.W.J.C.No.3618 of 2000 for expunction of remarks made therein that the petitioner had filed second writ application concealing the fact that he had moved an application earlier. 2. It appears that the petitioner, a Registered Society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, had been given grant in aid for the period 1997-98 in the year 2000 by the Ministry of Tribal Affairs. For the subsequent year, when grant in aid was not given for the reason that some dispute had been raised by one Dr.Durga Bhagat, the petitioner filed a writ application, vide C.W.J.C.No.3618 of 2000. While the matter was pending, petitioner-society came to know that grant in aid has been given to other Societies but it has been denied to the petitioner-society, the petitioner filed another writ application, vide W.P.(C) No.5228 of 2001. That writ application was taken for hearing on 12.10.2001, on which date it was disposed of after holding that no person has any right to have aid from the State till specific policy decision is framed by the competent authority. However, liberty was granted to raise the issue of discrimination before the Secretary, Ministry of Tribal Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi so that claim of the petitioner be decided by a reasoned order. After disposal of that writ application, C.W.J.C.No.3618 of 2000 which had been filed earlier was taken up for hearing on the point of admission on 8.3.2002. During course of hearing, respondents raised preliminary objection to the effect that the society had earlier moved before this Court in W.P. (C) No.5228 of 2001 for the same relief. Thereupon the court having taken notice of the order passed in W.P.(C) No.5228 of 2001 dismissed the writ application after holding that the court had earlier disallowed the relief sought for. 3. Almost nine years of passing of the order this review application was filed for review of the order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 3618 of 2000. 4. Thereupon the court having taken notice of the order passed in W.P.(C) No.5228 of 2001 dismissed the writ application after holding that the court had earlier disallowed the relief sought for. 3. Almost nine years of passing of the order this review application was filed for review of the order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 3618 of 2000. 4. Mr.Rajiv Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the writ application bearing C.W.J.C.No.3618 of 2000 has been rejected simply for the reason that the petitioner had concealed the fact that the petitioner had earlier filed writ application, bearing W.P.(C) No.5228 of 2001 and thereby the Court committed apparent error in dismissing the writ application as the petitioner could not have made statement in the writ application, bearing C.W.J.C.No.3618 of 2000 that he had also moved to this Court for the same relief in W.P.(C) No.5228 of 2001 as C.W.J.C.No.3618 of 2000 had been filed at earlier point of time. 5. It was further submitted that since C.W.J.C.No.3618 of 2000 had been rejected for the reason stated above, representation filed by the petitioner-society, pursuant to the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.5228 of 2001 was rejected, though the authority also assigned other grounds for rejecting the claim of the petitioner to have grant in aid in his favour and that has necessitated filing of the review application. 6. As against this, Mr. Prabhash Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that this review application filed after more than seven years of passing of the impugned order is fit to be rejected outrightly. 7. It was further submitted that there has been no error apparent on the face of the record in the order dated 8.3.2002 passed in C.W.J.C.No.3618 of 2000 and as such, no review application is maintainable and that if the petitioner was aggrieved with that order, he should have preferred an intra court appeal before this Court. 8. 7. It was further submitted that there has been no error apparent on the face of the record in the order dated 8.3.2002 passed in C.W.J.C.No.3618 of 2000 and as such, no review application is maintainable and that if the petitioner was aggrieved with that order, he should have preferred an intra court appeal before this Court. 8. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, it does appear that the order dated 8.3.2002 passed in C.W.J.C.No.3618 of 2000 is being sought to be reviewed on the ground that the said order under which writ application was dismissed was passed on the premise that the petitioner had concealed the fact of moving to this Court earlier for the same relief whereas the petitioner could not have mentioned in the writ application of moving earlier as the second writ application bearing W.P.(C) No.5228 of 2001 was filed later than C.W.J.C.No.3618 of 2000. 9. On going through the order dated 8.3.2002, it can never be said that the writ application was dismissed on the ground which was projected on behalf of the petitioner, rather the writ application was dismissed as earlier the Court had denied the relief in a writ application bearing W.P.(C) No.5228 of 2001. 10. The Court while passing the order dated 8.3.2002 took notice of the order dated 12.10.2001 passed in W.P.(C) No.5228 of 2001 which was even recorded in its order dated 8.3.2002. The same for better appreciation of the matter is being re-produced hereunder: “ This application has been preferred by the petitioner for a direction on the respondents not to discriminate in the matter of grant of aid to the Akhil Bhartiya Adivasi Vikas Parishad. Admittedly, no person has any right to have aid from the State till specific policy decision is framed by the competent authority. In the aforesaid background, relief, as sought for, can not be granted by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. If the petitioner had been discriminated vis-à-vis those, who are similarly situated, may bring the matter to the notice of the Secretary, Ministry of Tribal Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi, who is expected to decide the claim by a reasoned order, preferably within four months from the date of filing of such representation. This writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.” 11. This writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.” 11. Thereupon, the Court recorded that in the aforesaid background, the court having not allowed the relief earlier sought for on behalf of the same petitioner in W.P.(C) No.5228 of 2001, dismissed the writ application. 12. Thus, it never appears that the writ application bearing C.W.J.C. No.3618 of 2000 had been dismissed for the reason that the petitioner had concealed the fact that he had earlier moved to this Court for the same relief. In such situation, there never appears to be any error on the face of the record. 13. In that view of the matter, this review application being devoid of any merit is dismissed.